HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9189 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Pranav Agrawal and Ms. Vasundhara Mathur, Advocates on behalf of Respondent No. 5 is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Mayank Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri Vinay Shankar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 Shri Pranav Agrawal, as also, Ms. Vasundhara Mathur, learned counsels for the Respondent No. 5. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing therein the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow whereby he had directed the Inspector Incharge of Police Station - P.G.I., Lucknow to provide adequate police force for taking possession of the property in question from the petitioner on 17.09.2025. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order under Section 14 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 was passed on 20.03.2025 which was challenged before this Court in Writ No. 2507 of 2025 whereby the petitioner was relegated to avail his remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Pursuant to order dated 02.05.2025, petitioner filed a Securitization Application No. 658/2024 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal but that application has been rejected vide order dated 02.09.2025. It has been further argued that the petitioner is in the process of challenging the order dated 02.09.2025 by filing an appeal under Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mayank Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vinay Shankar Gaurav Krishnani And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Collectorate Compound Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Section 18 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, and therefore, till the statutory period of filing the appeal, this Court may provide that the possession of the property may not be taken from the petitioner. 5. Shri Vinay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the Bank i.e. Respondent No. 4, has submitted that the writ petitions in the matter of possession of property under the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 is not maintainable before this Court but if the petitioner is in the process of filing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and such appeal is filed within one month from the date of order i.e. from 02.09.2025, the Bank will not proceed to take the possession of the property in question pursuant to the order passed under Section 14 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002. 6. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and we are of the view that a writ petition in the present matter is not maintainable but since learned counsel for the Bank himself has offered not to take possession of the property in question till one month from 02.09.2025, therefore, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal within 15 days from today, and for a period of one month from 02.09.2025 i.e. till 02.10.2025, the Bank shall not proceed to take possession in respect of the property of the petitioner. September 19, 2025 Lokesh Kumar WRIC No. 9189 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench